3 ms·

You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to re

You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. What about the moral argument that by buying from any oppressive or dictatorial regime you are supporting that regime? And wouldn't this directly hurt local businesses? Given that the cost of living and production in the EU is higher the only way those businesses can survive is if a wealthier population buys the product, which is a much narrower segment of the market. > not buying from neighbouring regions is somehow supporting "where we live" Yes, buying from "someone" does support "someone". You can't be surprised by this, can you? Businesses need customers to survive. Without customers all local producers especially in such "expensive" countries become local importers from cheaper countries. What happens to the local economy once so much of the production is moved abroad, especially in exceptional situations like today? What happens when relation with that country go sour? You suggest that EU citizens should leave Greek and Italian family business out to dry because Morocco and Turkey are receiving immigrants. This is a weak argument, appealing only to pity ("but think of the immigrants") and brushing aside everything else.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
>You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all and it's not what I'm doing myself. I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from (barring special circumstances). I'm also suggesting that reducing trade with poorer neighbors has downsides for everybody, even if you are convinced that buying locally is economically beneficial. >Yes, buying from "where they live" does support "where you live". No, it does not necessarily do that. If you buy the same quality at a higher price locally, you may well be preventing your local economy from moving up the value chain or from becoming more productive and more competitive. >You made a weak argument, appealing only to pity That would be true if I was advocating buying worse value for money to support those countries. But that's not what I'm saying at all.
- close04 7y ago
  > I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from Many EU citizens see a lot of value in buying from inside the EU rather from any far-off country. When Greece's economy went bad all of the EU suffered a bit. Not so much if the economy of Chile goes bad. The more customers your "local" (national or EU) business loses to foreign producers that may have far lower production costs and quality, the more likely it is it will downsize or drop quality. > No, it does not necessarily do that. You followed this up with a very particular corner case which is not applicable here. The reasons EU olives are more expensive are because cost of living/production are higher, and standards are observed more closely. And the reason someone may prefer them are that standards are observer more closely and the choice to support local businesses. None of the are really something to argue with arguments of trade helping some other country that receives immigrants. > But that's not what I'm saying at all. Perhaps if next time you make your point clearer from the first attempt and not issue just a blanket, generic statement supported by an appeal to pity there would be no need to come back repeatedly to bring clarifications that in no way are obvious from your original comment. Especially when that comment was supposed to counter someone's personal opinion about what they prefer doing. Maybe you had the right idea but left too much of it out to the point where it becomes a frustrating puzzle of a discussion where you keep getting new pieces, some are the wrong size, some from another box, and some are actually onions.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago

>You suggested there is a moral duty of an individual in the EU to buy specifically from outside Europe (like Morocco or Turkey) because they were expected to receive migrants. No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all and it's not what I'm doing myself. I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from (barring special circumstances). I'm also suggesting that reducing trade with poorer neighbors has downsides for everybody, even if you are convinced that buying locally is economically beneficial. >Yes, buying from "where they live" does support "where you live". No, it does not necessarily do that. If you buy the same quality at a higher price locally, you may well be preventing your local economy from moving up the value chain or from becoming more productive and more competitive. >You made a weak argument, appealing only to pity That would be true if I was advocating buying worse value for money to support those countries. But that's not what I'm saying at all.

close04 7y ago
> I'm suggesting to buy the best value for money wherever it may come from Many EU citizens see a lot of value in buying from inside the EU rather from any far-off country. When Greece's economy went bad all of the EU suffered a bit. Not so much if the economy of Chile goes bad. The more customers your "local" (national or EU) business loses to foreign producers that may have far lower production costs and quality, the more likely it is it will downsize or drop quality. > No, it does not necessarily do that. You followed this up with a very particular corner case which is not applicable here. The reasons EU olives are more expensive are because cost of living/production are higher, and standards are observed more closely. And the reason someone may prefer them are that standards are observer more closely and the choice to support local businesses. None of the are really something to argue with arguments of trade helping some other country that receives immigrants. > But that's not what I'm saying at all. Perhaps if next time you make your point clearer from the first attempt and not issue just a blanket, generic statement supported by an appeal to pity there would be no need to come back repeatedly to bring clarifications that in no way are obvious from your original comment. Especially when that comment was supposed to counter someone's personal opinion about what they prefer doing. Maybe you had the right idea but left too much of it out to the point where it becomes a frustrating puzzle of a discussion where you keep getting new pieces, some are the wrong size, some from another box, and some are actually onions.